IGN: Thief Review

Every guard you come across in a stealth game is a sort of puzzle. How do I get past this guy without being spotted? Or do I put an arrow through his face? That’s the kind of thing Thief does well, using nice-looking shadows and scenarios with multiple paths to make us think before we steal. Everything else, from a clunky story and flat characters to a frustrating mess of a central map made me wish that this Thief reboot hadn’t bothered trying to connect those scenarios with fiction at all

Wrong. This is anything but anormal game. Theif is the 4th game in a series that started some 14 or so years ago. It's supposed to be so many things to many of us and still is yet, yes they've treated it as though it isnt. Using UE3 was the start.

Didn't disagree ^^ . I'm not a fan of the series because i never played them and even knew they exist until this one. Judging from the fans it's awful but as someone who didn't know the previous games this one is just a normal game and i'm not hating it or praising it , i actually bought it day one because of the idea of the game , i'm just being honest and stating my opinion.

I don't consider my self a sony fanboy . I'm only against bad experience. I don't like Xbox but doesn't mean others shouldn't . you have the right to enjoy Xbox as long we are all honest and state facts because that's better for all of us :P

So, yeah, the opinions on this are all over the place. It's always best to use your own judgement. You shouldn't let others make up your mind for you. With reviews from 9s to 3s, who's to say that you won't agree with the reviewers who gave it the higher scores?

I mean, how many of you guys' favorite movies received low scores on metacritic? How many movies that received high scores are movies you don't even like? Games are no different. It's a very personal sort of thing.

Unreal engine 3 is a generic ass engine that takes some pretty talented devs to make something that stands out...borderlands batman bioshock dishonored Alice madness returns, mass effect.... Think that's it for the games I actually thought were good/ decent that used UE3.

Yeah. From what I've seen, it looks like the moved the focus from actually being a thief, which means little to no combat and strong focus on stealth and subterfuge, to changing Garrett into more of an assassin that steals things, so now if you are detected, you don't have to hide or run and hope to not be discovered, and instead you can just engage in combat and break some necks or such... Seems like they shifted the stealth mechanic to more of an option than a necessity.

That being said, 1)I didn't enjoy Dishonored at all. I felt that game was also too different from the original Thief games to warrant a comparison. 2) I don't give an ounce of interest to reviews, especially IGN, which I see as one of the absolute worst and often bias reviewers out there. The only person's opinion that matters when reviewing games, is my own.

@imXify, how is 6.8 NOT a disaster? 68 out of 100 is a bad thing in any walk of like. It's a freaking "D" grade. Don't act like it's anything but a disaster. People who think like you act as if "average" would be a 50. That's not how it works. Average in just about any scoring system on a 10 or 100 point scale is a 7.5/75.

I was watching someone live stream play this game on PS4 last week, early copy I guess. Doesn't seem very fun and the highlight was this bordello with holes in the wall so you could peep in on the people. lol

6.8 is basically its average right now so IGN are pretty much spot on.

hmmm, not the score I was hoping for. Game looks like it has a solid foundation, but just not quite there. Here's hoping a demo surfaces on the PS4. I would love to try this game out before having to commit to a purchase.

Ive been apprehensive about the game since it was first revealed, with QTE's and "hold button to see everything around you" and all the other modern stealth problems. Sone of it was taken out but even then the game looked like a complete downgrade from thief 1-3.

My guess is its because of the amount of money people drop at ONCE. If you just go to a movie that's a 5-7 it's only ten bucks where as you buy a video game that's a 5-7 it's 60. That's why I think people have such a problem with it.

However I think a 7, or rather 6.8, is grounds for a decent, if not, good game.

"It's funny that in every other medium 5-7 is usually a passable- good score, but in gaming everything below an 8 is considered utter trash. "

It depends on what the game is

If it's an 8 or below for a new franchise then it's totally fine...no biggie, the game is new and it's trying to establish it's self in this market full of amazing AAA titles that have been out for years. It's expected.

If it's an old franchise which has something to live up to then yeah, for me if the majority of scores are below 8 then it's a downgrade and not worth my time. It means the developers have failed in respecting the old franchise and the IP in general.

You have to think though with this gen just starting, new games on the systems are a little more pricey...not everyone is made of money

I think the problem is that in gaming journalism 8-9s are handed out so easily that when a game gets a 7 and below it is perceived as trash. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Which is why I never go buy reviews.

Wow, you guys put way too much stock in reviews, and especially review scores.

You shouldn't let others make up your mind for you. The reveiws are all over the place, from 9s to 3s, so who's to say that you won't agree with the reviewers who gave it the higher scores?

I never care too much about what scores movies or games get. We all are individuals and our interests, tastes and preferences are simply too varied to rely on the opinion of another. Besides, there are too many people who are simply petty, irrational and biased to really trust reviews.

To be honest it's about what I was expecting, maybe 7.5 / 10. This game looks like it should have been a smaller condensed PSN / XBL version rather than trying to build a $60 retail version.

I don't get it, I know everyone wants to think their game is amazing and worth full price after all the time they've put into it, but someone has to be telling these developers that this game just isn't good enough, and it might be better to condense the game and release it as a downloadable for $20 - $30.

If they downscaled the game it could have been a condensed version of all the good aspects, map and loading issues wouldn't be problematic, level design shouldn't be an issue, review scores would go up, and people interested in your game might be willing to go ahead and pick it up at the reduced price rather than waiting for a price drop and forget about the game later.

Agreed! comparing a game to a movie is just plain stupid. $10 for a 1.5 hr - maybe a 3 hr movie compared to a game that will take you at least generally speaking 8 hrs unless your doing a speed run or something and not enjoying it at all is ridiculous.

You're 100% right. Sadly, though, with so many different rating scales and the ever-present use of score aggregation, it's so hard to tell when a game's score is "above average" or "average." It's a huge problem.

6/10 is mathematically equivalent to a 3/5, which is to represent the median score. It's an average game. It's elementary school math, gaming industry...

this is the reason why i am weary of reboots, because we enjoyed a games franchise many moons ago does not always mean it will resonate with gamers years after, same thing happened with bionic commando, syndicate 2012 etc. ah well i guess back to the drawing board or even better a new IP's

This is getting pretty mixed reviews so far, so I think that it'll either be a hit or miss with a lot of people. I hope I enjoy it, the only thing I've read that seems consistent is the long load times. Which is actually quite annoying; long load times is what sorta killed the new Sly Cooper game for me. Let's hope they're not too bad.

People often take reviews as gospel nowadays. When I see the consensus on a game anywhere in the 70% range, I assume that it's a 'play it for yourself' sorta deal. Which is what I definitely plan on doing.

the reason that is for me at least is the price of gaming especially here in the UK where games cost £50 i tend to read several reviews and watch videos before making a decision to make a purchase as i don't want to/ cant really afford to spend £50 on a game just because of nice looking trailers and nostalgia

Edit

"but surely a demo will be released"

i really hope so as i do enjoy the stealth genre. this is why i cant wait for Sony to start talking more about the tr before you buy feature that was briefly touched on at the ps4 reveal event

I totally understand that. Reviews are meant to inform the consumer on whether or not a product is worth their money. The price of being a gamer isn't a cheap one, but when reviews are this mixed -- in the 70% range -- it's more a case of try it first. I have loads of games that have average Metacritic scores, but I would rate them far above that because they just appealed to my tastes.

I'm not advising people to spend $60/£50 to try a game, but surely a demo will be released. If not, there's always renting, buying used, or waiting for a price drop.

Because they often are very biased towards whoever pays them. The most obvious example is Mass Effect 3 and how they went into full PR mode on behalf of BioWare since it was very likely they were getting a cut of the game sales due to Chobot being in the game as a lot more than a quick cameo.